Lo primero es lo primero: La tarjeta

Lo primero es lo primero: La tarjeta:

LA TARJETA

By Emili J. Belda

 Acabas de salir de la oficina y suena el teléfono móvil. Como siempre tú dirás la última palabra. -  ...

Lo primero es lo primero: La tarjeta

Lo primero es lo primero: La tarjeta:

LA TARJETA

By Emili J. Belda

 Acabas de salir de la oficina y suena el teléfono móvil. Como siempre tú dirás la última palabra. -  ...

Lo primero es lo primero: El Espíritu de Detroit

Lo primero es lo primero: El Espíritu de Detroit: EL ESPÍRITU DE DETROIT NOW THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT AND WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY." II CORINTHIANS 3:17 ...

polis: Reversing the Panopticon, Designing for Transparency

polis: Reversing Panopticon, Designing for Transparency

CityCosmos: EN EL PARQUE GEZI PREPARAN UN HUECO PARA LA LIBERT...

"At every meal that we eat together, freedom is invited to sit down. The chair remains vacant, but the place is set." Hannah Arendt
http://wp.me/p3cHCZ-dc

polis: #OccupyGezi Fights to Save Historic Istanbul Park

polis: #OccupyGezi Fights to Save Historic Istanbul Park

Stuart Elden: Kant, Space and Time | berfrois

Stuart Elden: Kant, Space and Time | berfrois

Leading Students Into the World

Leading Students Into the World

Comentarios sobre The Crisis in Education, de Hannah Arendt

Arendt y Polanyi: la prioridad de la política frente a la invasión de lo económico

http://fentciutat.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/arendt-y-polanyi-la-prioridad-de-la-politica-frente-a-la-invasion-de-lo-economico/

Un livre inestimable. A propos de J-M. Harribey, "La richesse, la valeur et l'inestimable"

Un livre inestimable. A propos de J-M. Harribey, "La richesse, la valeur et l'inestimable"

UnderstandingSociety: Hirschman on the passions

UnderstandingSociety: Hirschman on the passions: Numerous previous posts have emphasized the importance of having a theory of the actor when we do social science or history. Are people i...

City by instalments III

As a convicted maniac, I am forced to double-check every time I have a “great idea”. That is why I am perfectly aware from the beginning that the idea of founding a city might be the origin of a sect or a fraternity –why not of a mafia? Cannot we describe the sect, the fraternity or the mafia as a “city in search of a territory”? Or it might be just the opposite: that in the origin of every city there is an exodus. These images of permanent search of a territory can be explained as a rebellion against the nation-state or, more generally, as a rebellion against any form of discipline from above. Probably it is true: the sect, the fraternity, the mafia and the city can be understood as alternative strategies to resist and overcome the discipline imposed by the state government. 

A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse | David Graeber | The Baffler

A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse | David Graeber | The Baffler

Politics, the World and New Beginnings

1. The World is the result of the objects produced and the words pronounced throughout human history. It can be conceived as an artifice or as an excrescence which mediates between us and the biosphere of which we are, in any case, an integral part. Without work and action, the human species would not be biologically viable, which entails that these human faculties cannot be envisaged as gifts or a plus in relation to other species. Therefore, the use of our productive and political capabilities must be aimed at the construction and maintenance of a common world and assessed in terms of such a goal.

2. The common sense assertion that we live in a common world cannot be dissociated from three basic assumptions:

a) The World originally began when the first object was produced and the first word was uttered;

b) The World is like an organism that grows and changes every time a word is pronounced or an object is produced; and

c) No human or association of humans could ever master the World’s process of constant and accelerated growth.

Under these assumptions, the pretense that “another World is possible” is just nonsense since it implies whether the existence of an agent capable of controlling the World from within in its process of change or the possibility of a new beginning, which would require by definition the previous destruction of the existent World. Paradoxically, the destruction of the World is an event that we made technologically possible even though its occurrence will not probably be the consequence of a purposeful action. Regarding the possibility of controlling an eventual process of teleological change of the World, if we discard God, the only agent that could possibly master the World as a whole is a science-fiction entity: a hyper-integrated Humankind where individual human beings have become the constitutive parts of a superior organism with one mind and one will. I have to say does this scenario appears from our historical perspective the most plausible alternative to the prospect of mass destruction, which poses a tragic dilemma.

3. From a political perspective, these gloomy considerations are perfectly negligible precisely because the destiny of the World and Humankind exceeds the limited scope of politics. Politics is not about the World nor about Humankind but about a common world amongst many other possible and feasible common worlds. Politics is about possible new beginnings, about the possibility to start a new common world from scratch by pronouncing a word and producing an object as though for the first time. A new beginning is by definition small and localized and involves a limited number of human beings.

City by instalments (II)

I would like to say something about the long genealogy of my idea of founding a city. At some point of my life, I realised that I was trapped in the illusion of personal freedom and happiness. This illusion is socially constructed as an adaptive response that provides certain stability to the social system and allows us to behave as masters while we are just simple servants. In other words, I realised that I was a slave. The unexpected discovery that I was a slave, took me through a series of considerations that the only way out from my condition was to found a city.

Now, as I write, I realise that this weird idea is, somehow, the consequence of a previous conviction: the impossibility of revolution. The foundation of a city is the response to the impossibility of radical change from within or, at least, a new understanding of its political conditions. My disbelief in revolution can be synthesised by reference to three events. The first one is biographical: my experience in Bolivia during the revolutionary-constitutional process that took place between 2004-2007. The second one is intellectual: the reading of Hannah Arendt’s works on the nature politics and revolution. The third one is rather biological: the birth of Mauro, my first son, in 2008. The first two are clearly interconnected and related to political action, while fatherhood is actually the most relevant since it made me understand “tradition” under a new light: as the possibility of engaging in a political initiative that will require the participation of the coming generations.

The rejection of tradition, both in the sense of what we inherit from our predecessors and in the sense of what we will convey to our posterities, is significantly related to individualism: both shape the relationships that make our common world. Tradition connects the past with the future while the present is made of the political bonds that link us together. Our exacerbated individualism locks us within ourselves by cutting us from the past and from the future, and prevents us from keeping a meaningful present. The result is the disappearance of our common world. It does not matter how much information we have from outside, how much we travel or how much interconnected we are: our horizon is extremely short because we are alone with ourselves. Our limited capacity to understand the world is rooted, therefore, in our political loneliness, in our lack of memory and our incapability to see forwards. It is this incapability to perceive a common world what actually destroys it. From this perspective, individualism is the scape of the lonely slave and the illusion of personal freedom and happiness is her contentment. The foundation of a city is the reconstruction of a common world.

City by instalments

The foundation of a real city: a real-time account (I)

Four years ago I had a weird idea: to found a city. I needed people but, certainly, this is not the sort of thing you can go advertising around. On the other hand, the family cannot be the first brick of any political initiative. That is why I talked first to a couple of friends who know me and who love me: among us shame is almost discarded. They joined the initiative. This is what I coined as phyliarchia, a political principle.

I ignored almost everything about where this initiative would lead us. I just knew from the beginning that my boutade was a collateral effect of my recent fatherhood and I was perfectly conscious about the cause-effect relationship between Mauro’s birth and my sudden need to leave the World and build a new and decent place for us. This is probably an archetypical pattern or maybe just a naïf and silly idea. The positive thing is that my friends and me engaged in a political adventure which is taking us to places and revelations never imagined. 

None of us had a clue of what “to found a city” should mean. We discussed a lot and said a lot of non sense. Then we realized that all we could do was to behave as citizens of our city. At the beginning we could not feel at ease in such a chaotic city made of only three citizens who live about 15 km from each other, surrounded by thousands of people ignorant of their sudden condition of barbarians. Every object was there to separate us instead of keeping us together: buildings, roads, cars, railways,… but we designed some strategies to minimize these inconveniences. We had nothing except freedom of speech when we were together.

Since hospitality and pacifism are our flags, since our immigration rate was nil and military conquest is discarded, we implemented for a while what we call “il cibo è pronto” policy. It consists in inviting people for lunch or dinner, free of charge, no need to cook or to wash the dishes, etc… The results of this policy were mixed: citizens multiplied but they came just for lunch.

 

From Government to Politics: Liberation and Redistribution of Time

Liberation is just liberation from necessity and implies government; freedom is the possibility of redistributing our time and is the result of politics.

The reading of Hannah Arendt, particularly The Human Condition, brought to me a completely new understanding of “politics” and “freedom” and, what is even more important now, the need to distinguish between “government” and “politics”: “government” being related mostly to necessity and “politics” mostly to freedom.

The relationship between government and politics lies in the fact that without the first –i.e. without controlling, managing and putting limits to necessity- a political sphere cannot emerge or be conserved. The term “government” is used here in its broadest and most primary sense: the activity of ruling. It can be referred to the “government of a city or a state” or to the “government of oneself”, and includes several other cases of rule and administration by one over a certain group such as the “government of a University” by its President or Rector or the “government of a family” by the head or heads of family –the use the Latin “patria potestas” to designate the bundle of prerogatives and responsibilities that parents have over their children expresses very clearly what I mean. Whenever we find someone who gives orders and someone who obeys there is “government”: it is a factual not a legal or political issue.

My point is that government in this broad sense is an inherent feature of the human species –and probably of most animal species- directly linked to the genetic drive towards survival. In this sense, government can be explained as mostly concerned with reproduction: originally, “reproduction of life” that has become historically “reproduction of any given system”. Since many social systems are somehow connected, in the last instance, with the basic aim of reproduction of life, this can be considered a main feature of government in general. Government is, therefore, necessary in order to put limits to necessity.

Another main feature of government is the monopoly of violence: the possibility to punish, chastise, correct or discipline is inherent to any governmental phenomenon. In the last instance, ruling over someone implies the right of life or death: slavery in the Ancient times is based on this assumption and capital punishment is the modern state’s expression of it. Finally, government implies a categorical distinction between those who govern and those who are governed.

As for politics, it is defined precisely by the opposite features: politics has to do with what is unnecessary and is incompatible with phylopsichia, i.e. an excessive love of Life, which in Ancient Greece was connected with cowardice. Politics is based on speech and discourse and excludes the use of violence, what explains the fact that Athenian citizens condemned to death were “persuaded” to commit suicide instead of being executed by the polis.  And, thirdly, politics takes place among equals, i.e.: is incompatible with the distinction between rulers and ruled ones.

The situation of our contemporary society from the viewpoint of government and necessity can be characterised very simply: more production and more consumption go hand in hand with more scarcity, more necessity and, therefore, more need of government. Social inequality adds to this. Paradoxically, humankind, considered from an evolutionist point of view, is a successful species since reproduction and growth seem guaranteed. My point is: what is our individual and collective destiny if growth and reproduction alone are our driving forces? Are we really teleological beings? We are trapped in an economy of consumption based on the permanent creation of new needs.

These observations about the market society take me back to my argument: government is strictly necessary in every society. However, there is a trade off between government and political freedom. Politics depends on our ability to keep government and the economy limited in scope. The challenge is to establish an economic system –i.e., a production/consumption system- which encompasses reproduction of Life and quality of life for all. The possibility of politics and of political freedom –but also of creativity, contemplation, gaiety, love,…- lies in our collective capacity to keep an effective economy that satisfies needs instead of expanding them artificially. Government, not state government but the thick network of government centers -private and public, communal or whatsoever- should be responsible of managing and keeping the economy within its scope and limits.